(PC) O'Keefe v. Cate, No. 2:2011cv02659 - Document 253 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 5/14/2015 209 and 6/19/2015 217 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/3/2016. Plaintiff's 5/6/2015 203 Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED. Plaintiff's 6/26/2015 [22 1] Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED as UNNECESSARY. Plaintiff's 5/28/2015 212 Motion and plaintiffs 6/11/2015 215 Motion for Court to put his transfer on hold, construed as a Motion forInjunctive Relief, are DENIED. Requests for Appointment of Counsel contained in plaintiff's 6/24/2015 219 and 6/29/2015 222 Objections are DENIED. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
(PC) O'Keefe v. Cate Doc. 253 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY O’KEEFE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN P v. ORDER JERRY BROWN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 14, 2015 and on June 19, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and 20 21 recommendations. ECF Nos. 209, 217. Both sets of findings and recommendations were served 22 on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On June 24, 2015, after receiving an 24 extension of time, plaintiff filed objections to the May 14, 2015 findings and recommendations. 25 ECF No. 219. On June 26, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to 26 the June 19, 2015 findings and recommendations. ECF No. 221. On June 29, 2015, plaintiff 27 timely filed objections to those findings and recommendations. ECF No. 222. The motion for 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 extension of time will therefore be denied as unnecessary and the court has considered plaintiff’s 2 June 29, 2015 objections. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court 5 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 The findings and recommendations will therefore be adopted in full. 7 In both sets of findings and recommendations plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. 8 For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s order filed October 22, 2015, ECF No. 240, 9 those requests are denied. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 14, 2015 are adopted in full; 12 2. Plaintiff’s May 6, 2015 motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 203, is denied; 13 3. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2015 motion for extension of time, ECF No. 221, is denied as 14 unnecessary; 15 4. The findings and recommendations filed June 19, 2015, are adopted in full; 16 5. Plaintiff’s May 28, 2015 motion to stay (ECF No. 212) and plaintiff’s June 11, 2015 17 motion for the court to put his transfer on hold (ECF No. 215), construed as a motion for 18 injunctive relief, are denied; and 19 6. The requests for appointment of counsel contained in plaintiff’s June 24, 2015 and 20 June 29, 2015 objections are denied. 21 DATED: February 3, 2016 22 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.